Ghastly being removed from wikipedia...

Santavez · Post by **Santavez** » Sun Nov 19, 2006 5:16 pm

Step up to the plate fans! Stop the wiki-trolls from removing the listing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghastly%27s_Ghastly_Comic

A Link to the Past · Post by **A Link to the Past** » Sun Nov 19, 2006 7:03 pm

A novel effort, but this never works.

Jetsetlemming · Post by **Jetsetlemming** » Mon Nov 20, 2006 12:25 am

Actually, I think the ideas posed on the deletion page, to let http://www.comixpedia.org/index.php/Gha ... stly_Comic cover the comic itself, and have a wikipedia article on Tentacle Epics as a whole, sounds pretty reasonable.
*edit* changed my mind after looking at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:2000s_webcomics
There are a million and three two-bit comics nobody's ever heard of on Wiki, and none of them are being deleted. Paradoxally, the only reason Ghastly's is up for deletion is because it garners attention.

Jetsetlemming · Post by **Jetsetlemming** » Mon Nov 20, 2006 12:35 am

Jetsetlemming wrote:Actually, I think the ideas posed on the deletion page, to let http://www.comixpedia.org/index.php/Gha ... stly_Comic cover the comic itself, and have a wikipedia article on Tentacle Epics as a whole, sounds pretty reasonable.
*edit* changed my mind after looking at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:2000s_webcomics
There are a million and three two-bit comics nobody's ever heard of on Wiki, and none of them are being deleted. Paradoxally, the only reason Ghastly's is up for deletion is because it garners attention.

Look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sad_girl_in_snow One stupid little reference from Megatokyo, and it's got it's own little wikipedia article.

A Link to the Past · Post by **A Link to the Past** » Mon Nov 20, 2006 12:42 am

This is not a vote, this is a discussion.

The existence of articles less notable than the one on the AfD does not call for its inclusion. The fact that they exist on Wikipedia does not mean that they are necessarily approved of by Wikipedians.

Jetsetlemming · Post by **Jetsetlemming** » Mon Nov 20, 2006 1:07 am

Ghastly is plenty notorious compared to the vast numbers of webcomic articles on wikipedia. Deleting it would be deleting an article for a popular website that gets plenty of traffic, that people would come to wikipedia to look for. The primary point of having articles in wikipedia is this: "Will someone search wikipedia, looking for information on this topic?" Deleting an article that has information people would go on wiki to look for is 100% undermining the entire point of having wikipedia in the first place. Ghastly is popular. Significantly popular, enough to have people looking his work up.
Also, I have to ask this, since you're here and acting like a l33t wiki snob: What is the point of deleting articles left and right? I can see tiny useless ones about nothing, but if there's any valuable info on a page at all, AT ALL, what exactly is the value in getting rid of it? If someone goes on wiki looking for information, and doesn't find it because it's been deleted, then the project is a failure. The entire point of wikipedia is information.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiki_is_not_paper This rule is why the article should stay. There is NO value in deleting it, plain and simple. There is, however, use of the article to stay.

A Link to the Past · Post by **A Link to the Past** » Mon Nov 20, 2006 3:12 pm

Yeah? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOT#Wik ... nformation

You use Wikipedia not being paper to show that this should stay, but if it showed Ghastly's Ghastly Comic to be deserving of being on Wikipedia, the rule would apply to all subjects.

Anyway, as I have already said, the fact that there are less notable artists and comics on Wikipedia does not mean that they are notable.

Ghastly · Post by **Ghastly** » Mon Nov 20, 2006 4:49 pm

Wow, ALTTP really seems to be taking this personally. Did I piss in your wheaties or something?

Jetsetlemming · Post by **Jetsetlemming** » Mon Nov 20, 2006 5:28 pm

Ghastly wrote:Wow, ALTTP really seems to be taking this personally. Did I piss in your wheaties or something?

How dare you create a webcomic that's popular enough to have people care about it! You're risking proving him wrong in his nomination of the GGC article for deletion!

He keeps being a prick and trying to discredit everyone who votes keep on the discussion page, as well. Reminds me of why I don't respect Wikipedia at large. There are far too many people like Zelda Game here.

A Link to the Past · Post by **A Link to the Past** » Mon Nov 20, 2006 6:04 pm

1. Nothing. I like the comic and have been reading it for the longest time, and even sent you an email about it at one point.

2. I have a problem with people trying to "game the system" by alerting all fans of the subject on the slate and encouraging them to vote to keep it (even though AfD is not a vote; it's a discussion).

3. I am not disrespecting anyone. The only one being disrespected is me who is being referred to as a "wiki-troll" because I don't have a lower standard of what should be on Wikipedia as others do (and by lower standard, I mean less verifiability and sources required). The notes of users having only one edit are because the less active you are on Wikipedia, the less likely you are to understand Wikipedia policy.

4. I would be more than willing to withdraw my nomination if there could be significant verifiability shown - ie, mentioned on television, in a magazine, that sort of thing. Hell, I voted keep on Bonus Stage's assuming that verifiability can be shown. I am not anti-webcomic at all, or anti-webtoon, I am anti "cruft" (you'll have to pardon the phrase, as it is somewhat blunt). Even though I can assert notability and verifiability for an article on Portable Review (the site that I work on; note that there is no such article) by the fact that Konami, Namco, Atlus, The Game Factory, and D3 all send us review copies and news updates, I still wouldn't think it's notable enough. I am not "biased" and do not have a "vendetta" against the webcomic (if only it was updated more often though).

5. You seem to be taking this far more personally than I. One reason why you are is you are getting upset over a differing opinion while I am getting "upset" because of what happens far too often - people who lack the understanding of what the AfD is try to force it to go their way and ignore the criteria for being on Wikipedia. I grow tired of people getting upset over their little hip hop website getting AfDed and sending me death threats over it, I grow tired of people getting spammed to protect a Sonic fan game, and I grow tired of people getting spammed to protect any sort of article.

Ghastly · Post by **Ghastly** » Mon Nov 20, 2006 6:15 pm

The comic has been mentioned twice in View magazine. I've been invited as a guest 4 times to conventions (meaning they pay my travel, food, lodging, expenses) and have given panels attended by about 200 people. I've been on Much Music (Canadian TV channel, so you've probably never heard of it, but it's like your M-TV). It had well over 100,000 readers during it's peak and even now on hiatus 5000 people read it every day. I'm also responsible for an entire change in advertising strategy on ComicGenesis due to the nature of my comic angering the adnetwork (when I showed a whiteJesus having sex)

Now I'm no Penny Arcade and I'm not even a MegaTokyo but to say I'm not notable in the webcomics field would be to show a lack of understanding of the entire field of webcomics. But then again Wikipedia isn't exactly noted for requiring expert knowledge of subjects. Which is what makes it a great place of people who haven't done anything notable to demonstrate how notable they are by deleting people who actually have done something notable.

Let's face it. the only way to satisfy every wikipedia editor would be to delete everysingle wiki entry since every editor believes things they don't understand or like are not worthy of the "honour" of being included on Wikipedia.

Personally I don't care if it's deleted from Wikipedia or not. There's many thousands of entries about me and my work on Google that people seeking information on me can readily find it. The assertation that I'm not noteworthy in the field of webcomics gets a big one fingered salute from me.

(edit) Oh yeah and don't forget it spawned the memes "tentacoo wape" and "google seppuku"

A Link to the Past · Post by **A Link to the Past** » Mon Nov 20, 2006 6:26 pm

Well that's the kind of stuff that I was looking for, and would be more than happy to withdraw my nom. Although I would think an article about you and your works is better than the one individual work.

Ghastly · Post by **Ghastly** » Mon Nov 20, 2006 6:30 pm

There was an article on me on Wikipedia, the data from it was merged into the GGC one and the original deleted.

A Link to the Past · Post by **A Link to the Past** » Mon Nov 20, 2006 6:39 pm

Well anyway, sorry for not having researched the verifiability before having submitted the article to the AfD.

Also, considering much of the notability of the webcomic comes from the person running it, the article certainly should be about you. Hell, I could even see an article for the webcomic alongside it.

Jetsetlemming · Post by **Jetsetlemming** » Mon Nov 20, 2006 6:40 pm

I'd have your damn references by now if certain websites would work right. ¬_¬
And you're noting every new user's account is most definitely a sign of taking their disagreement with you personally and assuming bad faith. The wiki rules aren't at all complicated. They're tiny. They only get complicated when you branch out into the semi-policies that are disagreed with and currently being debated, and none of them matter as official policy anyway. The Notability rules specically mention that if a webcomic was published by a large and respected organization, that's a sign of notability. Ghastly's has been. There are arguements in the notability policy talk page specifically on keenspot/space, and it was agreed that while it's not notability in and of itself, it's a strong point towards it. Like already pointed out in the Afd page, Ghastly is mentioned at http://comic-nation.com/view_comic.php?comicid=177 , and http://www.comicalert.com/comics/8433-g ... tly-comic/ and http://www.tapestrycomics.com/?page=4
Searching for the word "ghastly" on google http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=gh ... gle+Search
has the comic as the top result, and, more importantly, the wiki article itself as #5, directly showing that people are interested in the content of the article, and the encyclopedic information within. People want this information. People USE this wikipedia article! the only info I don't have is the webpage's traffic and search ranking results from another site besides google. The point is that the comic itself, and it's wiki article, get plenty of attention. Answer this question: If people are looking at the wiki article for information, and the article itself isn't a spam or advertisement, and the subject of the article has been hosted on a popular webcomic service, and written up in a number of seperate places online, and the author of said comic is a member of a band, FURTHER gaining him notability (http://cdbaby.com/cd/scienceninjabigten) then what is the problem with the article's existence? What will wikipedia gain from deleting the article on GGC?
What?
edit: fixed the links. Also, here's a mention of Ghastly in view magazine: http://www.viewmag.com/viewstory.php?st ... 963&page=3

A Link to the Past · Post by **A Link to the Past** » Mon Nov 20, 2006 6:45 pm

I think you need to simmer down now.

But thanks for the sources, I was going to do some research to get some sources so verifiability can be shown in the article.

Ghastly · Post by **Ghastly** » Mon Nov 20, 2006 7:02 pm

Yeah, I don't think there's any need for continued arguments at least not on GGC's status on Wikipedia, especially since the issue seems to be resolved now.

Feel free, however to discuss the nature of Wikipedia or failing that the nature of frilly french maid uniforms and how they relate to erotic, bare-bottomed spankings.

Lulujayne · Post by **Lulujayne** » Mon Nov 20, 2006 7:04 pm

*ahem*

(I can't believe I'm going to enter into this, but hiegh ho)

I believe that the article should remain, although in its present incarnation it isn't particularly well written, and reads much more colloquially than most wiki articles I've ever read/used.

But more importantly, I think you should understand that this forum has pretty much always been like a great hippy love-in, except with special tentalce rapage included - and hopefully it always will be.
There's no need to gobble someone up just because you take umbrage at what they initially post Mr. Jetsetlemming

Now that's all said and done, kiss and make up, otherwise I shall have to go put on my wonder-woman outfit and get Uncle G to hold you down whilst I violate you

EDIT: Oooh, dammit, Uncle G beat me to it by two minutes - can I still violate them anyways?

Jetsetlemming · Post by **Jetsetlemming** » Mon Nov 20, 2006 7:13 pm

Lulujayne wrote: There's no need to gobble someone up just because you take umbrage at what they initially post Mr. Jetsetlemming

I'm anti-l33t.

I am sorry about the tone of that last post. I was writing it while looking up the links, though, so I didn't see the Ghastly's posts or Link's agreeing with him. >_> Whoops.
But hey, at least I helped with the sources.

A Link to the Past · Post by **A Link to the Past** » Mon Nov 20, 2006 7:19 pm

I must suggest one of you copy and paste the contents of the article in the event that it gets deleted, so it can be sent to the deletion review.